It's an issue of what mods can get away with in terms of treating people here

That might be an interesting debate ... what can mods get away with? what are the limits on moderation? can they be blatantly biased? is it reasonable that moderation is different in subsections of the forum? are the mods bound by the stated forum rules?

I debated you as a joke and to amuse myself. I've already told that joke, and already had that fun. You don't take that last debate to be a sign that I think you're worth the time to seriously talk to, do you? I've said the opposite over and over again.

Why, other than as a joke, would anybody debate somebody who's so mentally incompetent that they can't even reliably express a coherent thought? All our discussions including that one have gone the exact same way- I make a point, you ramble a bunch of incoherent nonsense, I make fun of you until there's something good on T.V. That's it. That's what you're for. That's why you should take up something like wood carving or curling or baking- some field that doesn't require the parts of your brain that don't work, so you can finally stop being a joke.

Imagine how cool that would be- if you could make really good bread, and everybody thought your bread was great, and wanted to eat your bread and buy your bread and know your secrets of breadmaking, and you didn't have to constantly pretend to be intelligent or rational and frustrate yourself? I don't know. Maybe baking is too much to ask of somebody with your challenges- but you get what I'm saying, right?

phyllo wrote:Can you play any game - including philosophy - without rules?

We never play by ANY rules, even when stayed. Take the dreamscape actions we decide upon, are we IN a Dream, or OF the dream, and it's chaotic chorse and collapsing narrative? Is schema at best periphial or even just added on after the fact, and we determine how reasonable it is from perception and willingness to engadge?

Even when we add strict rules of objective, third party arbitrators, such as a referee, are we still playing by the rules? Why are they so very frequently broken then, and open up to debate by angry players and coaches doing chicken dances on the field?

What we call rules, are they a means or a end? How well are we accepting of them on a unconscious level, and what does this say about the nature of ontology and telelogy? What does it say about who we are as a species? What did it evolve out of? Our ability to track a projectile? To organize a hunt? Do we actually believe cavemen had open enrollment and posted rules for their caves? Was JSS presumption remotely correct here:

What science do you propose to support the notion of the existence of organon?

Isn't science just a presumptive side effect of parallel processes like play, descended from a awareness we can privledge focus on aspects and yet disregard other aspects of thought? Is science just another form of Homo Ludens at play, a sub classification of a much larger activity we all engadge in, but insist must be different? It really isn't that different in many areas of thinking, and it isn't the rules that determine the remaining operations of desiderata, but rather identity and social justification that what we do here is worthy of pay and relaxation, but there is fun and games. It is all the dialectic in the end, we're just primates thinking, manipulating with our hands and thoughts, screwing around. Most mental operations aren't aware of "the rules".

Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

See, right there. You already sound like a retard. Philosophers, academics, 'intellectuals' and hell, adults, don't talk that way. You would be a lot happier with life if you could realize that this kind of thing really isn't your bag.

Seriously, have you tried baking? Everybody likes bread. Are you lucid enough to wash your hands, follow a recipe, etc?

See, right there. You already sound like a retard. Philosophers, academics, 'intellectuals' and hell, adults, don't talk that way. You would be a lot happier with life if you could realize that this kind of thing really isn't your bag.

Seriously, have you tried baking? Everybody likes bread. Are you lucid enough to wash your hands, follow a recipe, etc?

Remember that time you created a poll to ask if your posts were coherent, and 90% of respondents told you they were not?

What makes you think you can help whether you disappoint or not? You aren't mentally fit, it's not a promise you can keep.

And guess what??

They understood the poll and all contradicted themselves

Well, for example, people reading this thread won't even be able to tell what it is you're challenging me to debate you about. I still don't know. In fact, I don't even think you care what the topic is. This is just a desperate, pathetic attempt to prove you should generally be taken seriously.

Uccisore deleted a post in politics that almost nobody on earth can answer (probably even Uccisore) if asked.

The question: what is left (liberal) and right (conservative); what is democrat and republican?

Left (liberal) is: be who you are, if you fuck with anyone else's "be who you are" we send you to prison

Right (conservative) is: to hamper individual freedom for the sake of innovation in all forms because of collectivism, will never move the collective forward

Democrat: everything is voted and decided by popular vote

Republican: everything is decided by representatives (specialists) in their field

Now, why Uccisore would see fit to delete that in politics, and then tell me I know NOTHING about politics, makes him look mentally ill.

Then in the society aspect of the forum, which he also deleted, I posted that suicide should be legal and a right for everyone to facilitate the idea of personal freedom against slavery. Again, Uccisore is mentally ill to decide this has nothing to do with society.

Then I said that if trumps tax returns had been hacked, he would not be our president. This means that the hackers decided the election!

He deleted all three of those, and everyone, even Carleas, calls my content absurd, and calls me mentally ill.

I made the argument that all assertions in and of themselves are arguments...

I am walking

The sky is blue

Ecmandu's an idiot

They are arguments without additional content

Uccisore argued the opposite...

That just because there's reference doesn't mean it's an argument.

Carleas gave it to him.

If I had that debate today, I'd win ...

This is the debate Uccisore says he was just toying with me on.

I'll also debate that the issue of overlapping desires and mutually exclusive desires is the pinnacle of rationality.